Not Enough Guns--Yet Again
It's very sad that I have to write about this again, so soon. It's even more sad that this scummy bastard was able to kill and injure as many individuals as he did.
I never concern myself much about why these subhumans do the things they do. Suffice it to say that the sooner they're dead, the better. As author L Neil often says, "The best death penalty is the one carried out by the presumed victim, in self defense, before the killer can fulfill his nefarious plan." Or words to that effect. Unfortunately, that was not what happened at Virgina Tech on April 16, 2007.
I happen, as many of you know, to be of the opinion that many, perhaps most, mass shootings would be nipped in the bud--maybe prior to the first murder--were there someone nearby with a handgun and the ability to use it effectively.
Educational facilities have the misfortune to have been declared "gun free zones," by the government. Basically, this means that anyone bent 'pon murder will find it a safe area in which to carry out his killings. In the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, the evil and plumb loco Cho Seung-Hui was able to murder thirty-two individuals before committing suicide. Most likely, were it general knowledge that students and faculty could legally carry concealed weapons on campus, many of these guys wouldn't even try. Suicidals, like Cho, don't care. With animals like them, well, they simply have to be stopped. Unarmed students and faculty, cowering under their desks, won't stop him.
If I seem cold, it's because I'm angry. I'm angry that thirty-two individuals, most of them young students, some of them heroic, were killed by a crazed misfit who didn't even have the common decency to go off into a corner by himself and blow his brains out in private.
According to a link provided by Samizdata, a Virginia state house bill, HB1572, that would've allowed concealed carry of firearms on school campi by individuals with permits, was introduced a little over a year ago. The bill died it committee, as reported by the Roanoke Times here. Had this bill passed, we might've seen a very different outcome of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
On the other hand, presenting the pro-let-the-killer-do-whatever-he-wants position, Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker, defending the university's victim-disarmament policy of banning guns on campus last summer, said, "Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same." I wonder if he still holds that position.
The US federal government, so far unable to eliminate the Second Amendment and enforce an outright ban on privately-owned firearms, has worked with state and local governments to hamstring private individuals, making effective self defense very difficult (in some cities and states, impossible). Governments of many other countries seem to actually want to see their honest citizens victimized by criminals.
Ok, harsh words. These are harsh words directed against those who are seemingly ok with the occasional killing of several students in places where self defense is deliberately and explicitly not allowed.
I don't think my anger is unjustified.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
It's very sad that I have to write about this again, so soon. It's even more sad that this scummy bastard was able to kill and injure as many individuals as he did.
I never concern myself much about why these subhumans do the things they do. Suffice it to say that the sooner they're dead, the better. As author L Neil often says, "The best death penalty is the one carried out by the presumed victim, in self defense, before the killer can fulfill his nefarious plan." Or words to that effect. Unfortunately, that was not what happened at Virgina Tech on April 16, 2007.
I happen, as many of you know, to be of the opinion that many, perhaps most, mass shootings would be nipped in the bud--maybe prior to the first murder--were there someone nearby with a handgun and the ability to use it effectively.
Educational facilities have the misfortune to have been declared "gun free zones," by the government. Basically, this means that anyone bent 'pon murder will find it a safe area in which to carry out his killings. In the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, the evil and plumb loco Cho Seung-Hui was able to murder thirty-two individuals before committing suicide. Most likely, were it general knowledge that students and faculty could legally carry concealed weapons on campus, many of these guys wouldn't even try. Suicidals, like Cho, don't care. With animals like them, well, they simply have to be stopped. Unarmed students and faculty, cowering under their desks, won't stop him.
If I seem cold, it's because I'm angry. I'm angry that thirty-two individuals, most of them young students, some of them heroic, were killed by a crazed misfit who didn't even have the common decency to go off into a corner by himself and blow his brains out in private.
According to a link provided by Samizdata, a Virginia state house bill, HB1572, that would've allowed concealed carry of firearms on school campi by individuals with permits, was introduced a little over a year ago. The bill died it committee, as reported by the Roanoke Times here. Had this bill passed, we might've seen a very different outcome of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
On the other hand, presenting the pro-let-the-killer-do-whatever-he-wants position, Virginia Tech Associate Vice President Larry Hincker, defending the university's victim-disarmament policy of banning guns on campus last summer, said, "Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same." I wonder if he still holds that position.
The US federal government, so far unable to eliminate the Second Amendment and enforce an outright ban on privately-owned firearms, has worked with state and local governments to hamstring private individuals, making effective self defense very difficult (in some cities and states, impossible). Governments of many other countries seem to actually want to see their honest citizens victimized by criminals.
Ok, harsh words. These are harsh words directed against those who are seemingly ok with the occasional killing of several students in places where self defense is deliberately and explicitly not allowed.
I don't think my anger is unjustified.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
6 comments:
Col. Hogan, you're right on in this. It's really logical when you look at it that had even one of those students had a handgun, the evil lunatic could have been stopped in his tracks. It amazes me how the anti-gun lobby can twist this around to argue for more bans when those who commit these killings could just as well have been done with a banned gun (as they often are)
Excellent insights!
"Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same." I wonder if he still holds that position.
You bet he does, when you speak to folks who want to ban guns, you eventually come to the conclusion that they’ll stick to their positions no matter what, perhaps they might change their minds in the last moments when facing a gunman, who knows.
Governments of many other countries seem to actually want to see their honest citizens victimized by criminals. I don't think my anger is unjustified.
It’s not, we live with that reality every day. As I have told people before, in America you have true freedom as in, you can choose to own a gun to protect yourself, or you can choose not to and call someone who cares and hope it doesn’t hurt. But in places like Australia and or a Britain, we only have the second option. The criminals here have guns and knives and bats etc, but we law-abiding folks can’t be trusted with anything.
we law-abiding folks can’t be trusted with anything.
That's just the crux of it, isn't it, MK? How many stories do you hear of little old men running their little family fruit markets confronted by some punk with a gun who either beats them up, robs them blind or shoots them. How's anybody supposed to protect themselves or their belongings against the kinds of thugs who don't observe gun bans anyway?
There are many, many instances, here in the US, of cases in which an intended victim who is armed either shoots back or simply brandishes a firearm. Very often, he scares off the thug. Sometimes he actually fires at the guy. More rarely he shoots the crook and thwarts the crime.
Years ago, in the 1960's and seventies, the intended victim was occasionally prosecuted. Recent years, prosecutors will rarely bring such a case to court, knowing that juries will usually favor acquittal in cases of self defense (as they should).
As a comment on the msm, these stories are rarely reported except locally, and briefly.
"Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."
Now, I might be in Texas and having fell on my head once or twice, but I'm thinkin' that there was a lack in the preventin' department. What prevents were in place? An honour system? Yah-huh!!
We have a concealed carry law here, but the state has allowed businesses to post signs (mostly ignored) dis-allowing concealed weapons. I've told wifey if I get caght up in something like that and they have a sign or policy (in the case of my work) to sue the shit out of them. I'm mindful of the girl down at that Luby's in Killeen that left her gat in the car while that scum shot the place up.
Steve, I often refer to the Luby's Massacre in my arguments. That, and the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre are prime examples of "Not Enough Guns."
Post a Comment